Brown v. Metcalf

• Decision Date: 18 June 1913
• Citation: 215 Mass. 289,102 N.E. 413
• Parties: BROWN et al. v. METCALF.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

215 Mass. 289

102 N.E. 413

BROWN et al. v. METCALF.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

June 18, 1913

COUNSEL

Edwin C. Jenney and Summer Robinson, both of Boston, for petitioners.

Wellman & Gaskins and Hervey W. King, all of Boston, for respondent.

OPINION

HAMMOND J.

This is a petition for the registration of title to a tract of marsh land and flats situated in the city of Everett, on the northeasterly side of Mystic river. The petitioners claimed to be the owners of the whole of the land, while the respondent claimed to be the owner of the westerly half of it. The petitioners are the owners of the record title to what in 1795, in a deed thereof from one Green to one Stone is described as 'a piece of salt marsh and sedge grass that is called a sedge island'; and the petitioners and respondent between them own the record title to a tract of salt marsh and sedge ground conveyed later in 1795 by said Green to one Russell, lying to the west of that conveyed to Stone as aforesaid, the westerly half of this Russell marsh belonging to the respondent and the easterly half to the petitioners. The respondent also owns a tract of marsh land called formerly the Pierce marsh, situated to the west of the Russell marsh.

The main controversy was as to the location of the westerly boundary line of the petitioners' land. That involved an inquiry into the location of the Pierce and Russell marshes and the sedge island with reference to the tract of land covered by the petition, and the case necessitated a determination of the location on the ground of lines established more than a century ago across marshes and flats on the Mystic river which, as early as 1850, had been so changed by excavation that the original landmarks had to a considerable extent disappeared. Such an inquiry under such circumstances would be likely to be attended with considerable difficulty; and such seems actually to have been the case.

The case is before us upon a report of the land court, and the only question is whether a certain ancient plan called the 'Fuller plan' was wrongly admitted at the trial. After stating the evidence as to the plan, the report states that the plan was admitted at first de bene and continues as follows:

'At the conclusion of the arguments I took the papers and reserved decision, and thereafter made a careful study of all the plans and records offered, including the plan or sketch in question.

'I found the latter to be a substantially accurate

...